• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

PART II CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT:

Role of School Personnel

3 CURRICULUM PLANNING: A MULTI-

LEVEL, MULTISECTOR PROCESS

AFTER STUDYING THIS CHAPTER YOU SHOULD BE

ABLE TO:

1. Describe types of curriculum planning that are conducted at five levels and in three

sectors.

2. Describe an organizational pattern for curriculum development at the individual school

level.

3. Describe an organizational pattern for curriculum development at the school district level.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF CURRICULUM DECISIONS

Daily, curriculum decisions like the following are being made in some school district somewhere in the United States:

• An elementary school uses computer-assisted instruction in teaching the basic skills.

1 • Computer laboratories have been established in both the middle and senior high schools

of the same school district.

• A middle school has decided to incorporate more material on the achievements of various

ethnic groups into its social studies program.

• An entire school district has decided to put a program of sexuality education into the

curriculum at all levels.

• A senior high school faculty is concentrating on the development of students’ thinking

skills.

• A school system has revised a plan for bilingual education.

• An elementary school has decided to replace its reading series with that of another

publisher.

• A school district prepares pupils to take a state-mandated test.

• A school district has put into operation a program of character education.

• A school system has approved a plan for meeting the needs of the academically talented

and gifted.

• The secondary schools of a district have put into operation a plan for increasing

opportunities for girls to participate in team sports and for placing these sports on a par

with boys’ athletic activities.

• An urban school district is establishing a magnet secondary school that will emphasize

science, mathematics, and technology.

Variations among Schools

Countless curricular decisions like those in the preceding examples are made constantly.

Some decisions are relatively simple—adding a course here, deleting a course there, or making

2 some minor changes of content. Other decisions are sweeping and far-reaching— for example, the institution or abandonment of open-education plans or the conversion of a 6–3–3 plan for school organization (six years of elementary school, three of junior high, and three of senior high) to a 4–4–4 plan (four years each of elementary, middle, and high school). These changes are both administrative and curricular decisions.

Some of the more dynamic school systems maintain a lively pace of curriculum decision making and are continuously effecting changes in the curriculum as a result of these decisions.

Often more than one type of change occurs simultaneously in some districts and schools.

Some systems follow a reasoned, measured process for arriving at planning decisions and carrying out those decisions; others enter into an almost frenzied, superheated process in which dozens of curricular ideas are dancing around without decisions or resolution; other school districts demonstrate lethargy and apathy toward curricular decision making and are, for all intents and purposes, stagnant.

The foregoing illustrations of curriculum decisions are typical examples occurring within individual school districts. These illustrations of curriculum decisions could apply to multiple school districts scattered throughout the United States.

How can we account for the simultaneous development of curriculum plans in different parts of the country? Shall we attribute it to legal pressures from federal or state sources? Among the foregoing illustrations only three—bilingual education programs, increased opportunities for girls to participate in team sports, and preparation for a state test—may be said to have evolved as a result of legal processes. In 1974 the United States Supreme Court opened the doors to bilingual education programs with its decision in the Lau v. Nichols case.1 As a consequence of this decision the San Francisco school system was required to provide special instruction to

3 children of Chinese ancestry who were having difficulty with the English language. Furthermore, federal funds have been appropriated to assist school systems to develop and implement bilingual education programs. The participation of girls in team sports has been advanced through enactment by the U.S. Congress of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, which bars discrimination on the basis of gender. With added pressure from the No Child Left

Behind Act of 2001, states, setting academic standards, have been instituting tests at the elementary through high school levels. Certainly, federal and state legislation and court decisions have brought about curricular change, as we will explore more fully later. But we must also look elsewhere for other causes or partial causes of simultaneous development of curricular plans.

Simultaneous Developments

Though it is unlikely, similar curriculum developments in different school systems may unfold at the same time by pure chance. This situation resembles that of two astronomers, unknown to each other and separated by oceans, who suddenly discover a new planet, or two scientific researchers who find within days of each other a cure for a disease plaguing humankind.

It is more likely that our country’s efficient systems of transportation and communication can be pointed to as principal reasons for concurrent curriculum development. These pervasive technological systems make possible the rapid transmission of the beneficial pollen (or not so beneficial virus, depending on one’s point of view) of curricular ideas.

These gigantic systems have an impact on all the constituencies of a school district— the administrators, teachers, students, parents, and other members of the community. Transportation makes it possible for people from all parts of the country to get together in formal and informal settings and discuss contemporary problems of the schools. It would be interesting, for example,

4 to measure the effects of national professional conferences on the spread of curricular innovation. Although the pessimist would assert that a great deal of drivel flows at many professional conferences, enough seeds of wisdom are shared and taken back home where they are planted, nurtured, and brought to fruition. Could not several of the preceding illustrations have come about through the exchange of ideas on a person-to-person basis at a state, regional, or national meeting?

With possibly an even greater impact, communication systems permit the dissemination of reports of educational and social problems in various parts of the country and descriptions of how communities have sought to cope with these problems. The ubiquitous computer and a dazzling and seemingly never-ending array of technological devices keep us apprised of developments around the world. The commercial press and television consistently make the public aware of social problems that call for some curricular responses, such as military conflicts, AIDS, drug abuse, crime, unemployment, ethnic tensions, environmental hazards, and the lack of basic skills on the part of young people. The media have been instrumental in revealing widespread dissatisfaction with the public schools to the point where lay constituencies are demanding that curriculum changes be made or parents be issued vouchers so their children may attend nonpublic schools of their choice.

While the commercial media are pointing out social problems and, on occasion, educational responses to these problems, the professional media are engaged in healthy dialogue.

The United States is blanketed with professional journals filled with educators’ philosophical positions; proposals for change; and reports of projects, research, and experimentation. National and state professional organizations, the United States Department of Education, and state departments of education frequently release monographs, guides, and research reports of

5 promising curricular projects. Both popular and professional books on education make their contributions to the quest for curricular solutions to many social and educational problems. Who is to assess, for example, the impact made on the schools by educators such as Earl Kelley, who stressed the importance of an individual’s self-concept;2 Ralph Tyler, who suggested a systematic way of arriving at instructional objectives;3 Benjamin Bloom and his associates, who offered a way of classifying educational objectives and advocated mastery learning;4 James B.

Conant, who made recommendations that were widely adopted by secondary schools;5 Jerome S.

Bruner, who wrote on the structure of disciplines;6 Theodore Sizer, who founded the Coalition of

Essential Schools;7 and John I. Goodlad, who directed an extensive study of schools and made recommendations for improvement?8

Through modern means of communication and transportation, curriculum innovations— good, bad, and indifferent—are transmitted rapidly to a world thirsty for new and better ways of meeting its educational obligations to children and youth. It is extremely difficult in an enterprise as large as education to pinpoint the source of a particular curriculum change, and it is not usually necessary to do so. What is important to the student and practitioner in curriculum planning is to understand that processes for effecting change are in operation. These processes extend beyond the classroom, the school, even the school district.

LEVELS OF PLANNING

Curriculum planning occurs on many levels, and curriculum workers—teachers, supervisors, administrators, or others—may be engaged in curriculum efforts on several levels at the same time. The levels of planning on which teachers function can be conceptualized as shown in Figure 3.1.9 All teachers are involved in curriculum planning at the classroom level, most teachers participate in curriculum planning at the school level, some take part at the district

6 level, and fewer and fewer engage in planning at the state, regional, national, and international levels. A few teachers, however, do participate in curriculum planning at all levels.

Importance of Classroom Level

The model in Figure 3.1, with its ascending stairs and even with its use of the term

“levels,” may lead to some erroneous conclusions. You might decide, since the steps clearly sketch a hierarchy, that planning at the classroom level is least important and planning at each successive level is increasingly more important. Nothing could be further from the truth. If we are concerned about levels of importance, and indeed we are, we should concede that classroom planning is far more important than any of the successive steps. At the classroom level, the results of curriculum planning make their impact on the learners.

INSERT FIGURE 3.1

Levels of Planning

In some ways it would appear pertinent if we turned the model around and placed classroom planning at the top and international planning at the bottom. Unfortunately, reversing the step model would introduce another possible misinterpretation. Since the classroom is the focal point for curriculum planning and the main locale for curriculum development efforts, this stage is shown as the first step. Designating the international level as the initial step would be extremely inaccurate since very few teachers or curriculum specialists work at that level and then usually only after they have demonstrated competence in the other levels.

The step model may convey to some readers that curriculum workers move through each stage or level in a fixed sequence. Although most teachers are involved in curriculum planning at both the classroom and school levels, some will proceed no further than those two levels. Some teachers and curriculum specialists work in sequence from one level to the next or

7 simultaneously at all levels, whereas others may skip whole levels. Although curriculum planning usually begins in the classroom, it may start at whatever level curriculum workers feel a need to initiate change.

Since the steps in the preceding model are of equal width and rise, the model can give the impression that curriculum planners have an equal opportunity to participate at all levels and spend equal amounts of time in planning at each level. Opportunities for curriculum planning become fewer at each successive step up the staircase. Consequently, if the step model is retained to show the levels of planning, it would be better to visualize the rise between steps as progressively higher and the width of each step as progressively narrower.

The persons with whom we are most concerned in this textbook—the curriculum workers at the school and district levels—will be able to devote only limited time to curriculum planning at levels beyond the district.

As long as we conceptualize levels of planning as loci of work rather than of importance and understand that curriculum specialists do not necessarily work at all levels or in a fixed sequence of levels, the concept of levels of planning is valid and useful.

SECTORS OF PLANNING

Some curriculum theorists might feel somewhat more comfortable if, instead of speaking of levels of planning, we talked of sectors of planning. The concept of sectors eliminates the hierarchical and sequence problems of the step model and says simply that curriculum planning goes on in eight sectors—the classroom, the team/grade/department, the individual school, the school district, the state, the region, the nation, and the world. The sector model, illustrated in

Figure 3.2, shows teachers and curriculum workers spending the largest part of their time in the individual school and school district and decreasing amounts of their time in sectors beyond the

8 district boundaries. The broken lines signify that an individual teacher or curriculum planner may work at separate times or simultaneously in more than one sector. On the other hand, the teacher or curriculum planner may confine himself or herself to the classroom sector.

Models of levels or of sectors of planning address the questions of where decisions are made and what organizational processes are used for developing plans. These models do not, of course, answer the questions of why decisions are made, a topic explored in later chapters.

In discussing levels or sectors of planning, we should distinguish between levels or sectors in which individual planners work and those where decisions are actually made. These are not necessarily the same. Let’s take, for example, the case of a fifth-grade teacher. This teacher may possess sufficient leadership skills, motivation, and knowledge to become involved in curriculum planning either at successive times or simultaneously in the classroom, team/grade/department, school, and district levels. This individual may be involved at each level in making curriculum decisions that affect him or her as well as others in the school system.

On the other hand, this fifth-grade teacher may be engaged in curriculum planning at only the classroom level and may not be actively involved in the process above that level.

Nevertheless, decisions about classroom curriculum that the individual teacher wishes to make must often be referred to a higher level of decision making, especially if these decisions will affect other teachers. For example, the individual teacher cannot unilaterally replace an adopted textbook that is part of an articulated series used at several grade levels. Decision making, then, will and must take place at higher levels whether or not the individual teacher actively participates in them.

INSERT FIGURE 3.2

Sectors of Planning

9 A Hierarchical Structure

Since many curriculum decisions must be, in effect, ratified at successive levels, we do have a hierarchical structure in operation throughout the United States. Each successive level of the hierarchy, up to and including the state level, possesses the power to approve or reject curriculum proposals of the level below it.

In practice, responsibility for curriculum planning is spread across the levels of classroom, school, district, and state. Whereas teachers and curriculum specialists may participate in curriculum projects at the state level, their curriculum efforts at that level are purely advisory. Only the state board of education, the state department of education, or the state legislature can mandate incorporating the projects’ results in the schools’ programs. School systems must follow specific state regulations and statutes after which, allowing for state curriculum mandates, they may then demonstrate initiative in curriculum planning.

Limitations of Hierarchical Structure

Beyond the state level, hierarchical power structure does not hold true. In our decentralized system of education, authority for education is reserved to the states. The regional, national (with appropriate qualifications), and international sectors may seek to bring about curriculum change only through persuasion by working through state and local levels.

The national level represents a unique blend of control through both authority and persuasion. Some maintain that in spite of our decentralized system, the federal government exercises too much control over the schools, including the curriculum of those schools.

The history of federal legislation in support of vocational education and education of the handicapped, for example, reveals that the national level exerts a potent influence on the curriculum of the schools throughout the country. The dollar, distributed by the federal

10 government is, of course, in itself a powerfully persuasive instrument. However, officials at the national level can intervene in state and local school matters only subsequent to federal legislation that they are empowered and required to enforce.

It is a moot question, however, whether the enactment of federal legislation and the enforcement of federal decisions can be called curriculum planning in its true sense. For example, whereas school districts must comply with federal legislation that bans all forms of discrimination in the schools’ programs, they are under no obligation to submit grant proposals for optional types of aid.

Consequently, we might design a model that shows the levels of curriculum planning through the state level and the sectors beyond the state level. Such a model is shown in Figure

3.3.

CURRICULUM EFFORTS AT THE VARIOUS LEVELS

When the graduates of teacher education programs, with degrees and state certificates fresh in hand, sign contracts for their first teaching positions, they generally have only the vaguest of notions of the extent to which they will be involved in curriculum planning and development. Teacher education institutions do not ordinarily require courses in curriculum development at the undergraduate level. A typical preservice training program, ignoring the problem of differing delivery systems, consists of general education (liberal studies); foundations of education (social, psychological, philosophical, and historical) or introduction to education; methods of teaching (both general and specific); and student teaching in addition to a field of specialization (elementary or middle school education or secondary school academic discipline).

Some teacher candidates are exposed to an undergraduate course in curriculum, which provides them with an overview of the sources of the curriculum; presents a survey of programs in

11 elementary, middle, and secondary education; and raises some curriculum issues. Despite their limited undergraduate training in curriculum development, teachers engage in instructional and curricular decision making from day one. Novice teachers are, as a rule, reasonably well trained to make the instructional or methodological decisions but are less well equipped to make the curricular or programmatic decisions, even though they may be well grounded in subject matter.

INSERT FIGURE 3.3

Levels and Sectors of Planning

Teachers and curriculum specialists work within and across many levels and sectors.

Each level performs distinct curricular efforts and has its own organizational processes for making curriculum decisions. Let’s examine these levels more fully and point to the internal structures professionals have created to improve the curriculum. By contrast, in Chapters 4 and 7 you will see how external structures—those outside the teaching profession itself—impinge on internal structures.

For curriculum decision making to take place, appropriate organizational structures are essential. In the following pages of this chapter we will examine such structures in some detail.

In Chapter 4 you will find a fuller treatment of the roles of various individuals and groups in the curriculum development process.

The Classroom Level

At first blush it seems that all programmatic decisions have been made for the teacher at the time he or she is employed. A full-blown program is already in operation at the school where the teacher is to be assigned. The school board contracts with the applicant to fill an advertised position, be it early childhood education, sixth grade, middle school English, or senior high school chemistry. The principal makes the teaching assignment and informs the teacher about

12 school policies and regulations. If the school is large enough to require the services of supervisory personnel other than the principal, the teacher may be referred to one of the supervisors for further orientation. The supervisor designated by the principal (for example, the assistant principal, a grade coordinator, or a department head) acquaints the teacher with the adopted textbooks and whatever other curriculum materials are used, such as statements of objectives, syllabi, and curriculum guides.

The new teacher begins to feel with some justification as if all the important decisions about the curriculum have already been made by others—the school, the district, the state, the nation, the public. Have we not in our educational history encountered materials that were supposed to be “teacher-proof ”? No need for a teacher at all with teacher-proof materials!

Perhaps the life of the teacher would be easier and less complicated if the curriculum were prescribed. On the other hand, it is safe to say that the teacher’s life would be immensely duller were there no curriculum decisions to be made. If teachers subscribe to the axioms that change is inevitable and never-ending, they will come to view their role first and foremost as decision maker. The teacher then not only makes decisions or participates in shared decision making but also gathers data on which to base decisions, implements decisions, and evaluates programs. In what specific curriculum endeavors, we may ask, is the individual classroom teacher likely to participate? Let’s respond to that question in two ways.

Two Cases. First, let us take the hypothetical cases of two high-powered, experienced, highly motivated teachers—a fourth-grade teacher and a tenth-grade teacher of social studies. We will further posit that (l) the fourth-grade teacher is a male and the tenth grade teacher, a female, (2) both are employed in the same school district, and (3) both participate in curriculum planning at all levels and sectors. Our fourth-grade teacher, whom we will refer to as Teacher F, is the grade

13 coordinator in a school that houses three sections of the fourth grade. Our tenth-grade teacher,

Teacher N, is a member of a social studies department numbering eight faculty members. We will examine their curriculum development activities at one point in time—the cold and windy month of March.

During this period Teacher F was selecting supplementary materials for his pupils’ science lessons (classroom level). He was reviewing with the other teachers the next day’s mathematics lesson for slower students in the classes and examining a new fourth-grade reading program (grade level). He was also participating in making recommendations for implementing a new human growth and development program in the school (school level), serving on a committee studying ways to implement federal legislation regarding the handicapped (district level), serving on a statewide committee to define minimal competencies in language arts (state level), taking part in a panel discussion at a regional conference on effective teaching (regional level), finishing a proposal for federal funding of a project for children-at-risk (national sector and local level), and planning activities for a program on contributions of immigrants to

American culture (international sector and local level).

While Teacher F has been making his contributions toward keeping the curriculum of his school system lively, Teacher N has been no less occupied. She has just finished resequencing the content of a course in geography that she regularly teaches (classroom level); is working with all the tenth-grade social studies teachers on a new course in consumer economics (department level); will attend later in the week as her department representative a meeting of the school’s curriculum council to discuss ways for the school to use community resources more effectively

(school level); has been serving on the same district committee as Teacher F, which is charged with the task of making recommendations for an improved curriculum for the physically

14 challenged (district level); has been invited to participate on a committee to consider changes in the state’s minimal requirements for high school graduation (state level); served a week ago on a visiting committee for a distant high school that is seeking accreditation (regional sector); has been notified by the National Endowment for the Humanities that a proposal she submitted will be funded (national sector and local level); and has been invited by the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children to present a paper at a conference in Europe (international sector). While relatively few teachers have the opportunity, ability, or perhaps the inclination to participate in curriculum efforts at all levels and in all sectors suggested by these two hypothetical cases, none of these curricular activities is beyond the realm of possibility. Teachers have engaged in activities like these at some time or other.

A second way to respond to the question “In what specific endeavors is the individual classroom teacher likely to participate?” is to survey typical curriculum efforts that take place at each level and in each sector. An examination of some of the curriculum responsibilities at the classroom level reveals that the individual teacher has a rather large task cut out for him or her.

A number of tasks in curriculum development at the classroom level may be identified.

Tasks of Teachers. Teachers carry out activities in curriculum design when they write curricular goals and objectives, select subject matter (content), choose materials, identify resources in the school and community, sequence or resequence the subject matter, decide on the scope of the topics or course, revise the content, decide on types of instructional plans to use, construct the plans, try out new programs, create developmental and remedial programs in reading or other subject matter, seek ways to provide for all kinds of individual differences in the classroom, incorporate content mandated by levels above the classroom, and develop their own curricular materials.

15 Curriculum implementation is equated by some curriculum experts with instruction.

Some hold the view that curriculum implementation does not start until the teacher interacts with the students. I would include in this concept the final stages of curriculum planning r design when the nitty-gritty decisions are made about how programs will be put into operation and how instruction will be designed and presented. Within this context teachers are occupied at the classroom level when they select appropriate emphases within the subjects, decide which students will pursue what subject matter, allot times for the various topics and units to be taught, determine if the facilities are appropriate and how they will be modified (if necessary), decide how materials and resources may best be made available to the learners, assign duties to volunteer aides, write instructional goals and objectives, and select and carry out strategies for classroom presentation and interaction.

Teachers have the responsibility of evaluating both the curriculum and instruction. In some ways it is difficult to separate the two dimensions of evaluation and to tell where instructional evaluation ceases and curriculum evaluation begins. In a very real sense evaluating instruction is evaluating curriculum implementation. We may clarify the distinctions between the two dimensions of evaluation in the following way: Curriculum evaluation is the assessment of programs, processes, and curricular products (material, not human). Instructional evaluation is

(1) the assessment of student achievement before, during, and at the end of instruction and (2) the assessment of the effectiveness of the instructor. Thus, teachers work at the task of curriculum evaluation when they seek to find out if the programs are meeting the curriculum objectives; try to learn if the programs are valid, relevant, feasible, of interest to the learners, and in keeping with the learners’ needs; review the choices of delivery systems, materials, and resources; and examine the finished curriculum products, such as guides, unit plans, and lesson

16 plans, that they have created. Teachers conduct instructional evaluation when they assess the learners’ entry skills before the start of instruction; give progress tests; write, administer, score, and interpret final achievement tests; and permit students to evaluate their performance as instructors.

These examples of activities transpiring at the classroom level demonstrate that curriculum planning and development are complex and demanding responsibilities of the teacher. As we discuss curriculum planning at the various levels in the following pages of this chapter, it may seem that individual teachers have little autonomy. Surely, many hold that view, and to some extent there is truth in that belief. The impingement of federal, state, and local school system mandates affecting the teachers’ prerogatives in the areas of curriculum and instruction is a serious concern. In spite of the infringement on the teachers’ professional responsibilities, many curricular and instructional decisions remain to be made, especially in selecting delivery systems, adapting techniques to students’ learning styles, diagnosing student problems, and prescribing remediation.

Teachers may take comfort from the fact that they have at least as a group, if not individually, considerable opportunity to shape curricular decisions at the classroom, local school, and district levels and some opportunity at the state level.

The Team, Grade, and Department Level

One of the axioms in Chapter 2 stated that curriculum development is essentially a group undertaking. Once the teacher leaves the sanctuary of the self-contained elementary, middle, or secondary school classroom and joins other teachers, curriculum development takes a new turn.

It calls for a cooperative effort on the part of each teacher, places a limit on solitary curriculum planning, and calls for a more formal organizational structure. It is at the team, grade, or

17 department level that curriculum leadership begins to emerge, with leaders coming to be distinguished from followers.

For decades the graded school system with its orderly hierarchical structure and self- contained classrooms has been and continues to be the prevailing model of school organization.

In the late 1970s, however, the self-contained classroom with its one teacher and one group of students was jostled by the appearance of open-space or open-area schools. Scores of elementary, middle, and junior high schools were built as or converted into open-space facilities.

In these schools, in place of walled, self-contained classrooms came large open spaces in which the learning activities of a large group of youngsters were directed by a team of teachers assisted in some cases by paraprofessionals. A semblance of territoriality was created by assigning each of the members of the teaching team to a particular group of youngsters whose home base was a sector of the large open area. In theory and in practice, groups and subgroups were formed and reformed continuously depending on their learning needs, goals, and interests and on the teachers’ individual competencies. Although open-space schools can still be found, the movement has reversed itself, and in many cases open classrooms have been converted or reconverted into self-contained classrooms. Sentiment among teachers, parents, and students has continued to favor the self-contained classroom.

Specific curriculum innovations are discussed in this text primarily to delineate the process of curriculum development and to help the curriculum worker to effect and evaluate curriculum change. Organizational patterns appear in this chapter to illustrate teachers’ participation in curriculum planning at various levels beyond the classroom. Teachers in schools organized into self-contained units participate at the grade or department level. Teachers in open- space elementary schools share curriculum planning responsibilities at both the team and grade

18 levels. Teachers in middle schools customarily take part in curriculum development at the team

(usually interdisciplinary), grade, and department levels. Secondary school teachers join with their colleagues in curriculum planning primarily at the department level, also on the grade level, and, in the case of team teaching efforts, at the team level.10

With the children for whom they are specifically responsible in mind, the teachers in a team, given grade, or particular department are called on to make curricular decisions such as the following:

• determining content to be presented

• sequencing subject matter

• adapting instruction for exceptionalities

• establishing or revising team, grade, or departmental objectives

• selecting materials and resources suitable to the children under their supervision

• creating groupings and subgroupings of learners

• establishing a means of coordinating progress of students in the various sections and

classrooms

• writing tests to be taken by students of the team, grade, or department

• writing curriculum materials for use by all teachers

• agreeing on team-wide, grade-wide, and department-wide programs that all students and

teachers will attend

• agreeing on ways students can learn to demonstrate socially responsible behavior and

self-discipline

• agreeing on or reviewing minimal standards that pupils must demonstrate in the basic

skills

19 • cooperating in the establishment and use of laboratories and learning centers

• agreeing on implementation of the school’s marking practices

• agreeing on the institution of new programs and abandonment of old programs within

their jurisdiction

• planning tutorial programs for students who do not do well on state exams

• evaluating their programs, students, and instructors

These are but a sampling of the many kinds of cooperative decisions that members who constitute the team, grade, or department must make. Team leaders or lead teachers, grade coordinators, or chairpersons are generally free to make many, though not all, decisions that affect only their own classes. When a decision is likely to have an impact on teachers other than the individual classroom teacher, it becomes a matter for joint deliberation by the parties to be affected or, at higher levels, by their representatives.

To enable the decision-making process to become more efficient, curriculum leaders either emerge or need to be designated. Team leaders or lead teachers, grade coordinators, or chairpersons are appointed by the principal or elected by the teachers themselves. Those administrators who are inclined to a bureaucratic approach to administration prefer the former system, and those who are disposed to a collegial approach permit the latter system. In either case, if the most experienced and skilled teachers are chosen for leadership positions, they may establish themselves as curriculum specialists, key members of a cooperating group of curriculum workers.

Patterns of organizational interaction among teachers, teams, grades, and departments with the principal vary from school to school and from school district to school district.

20 In the less common small school with only one class of each grade with one teacher in a self-contained unit, the individual teacher is both the leader and follower and has sole responsibility for making curriculum decisions (with the administrator’s cooperation and approval) for the classroom and grade levels, in this case identical. The teacher and principal, who is viewed by many as the school’s instructional leader, relate to each other directly.

Although the presence of a single section of a particular grade prevents cooperative curriculum planning within grade levels, cooperation is possible, if the principal encourages it, at the school level and across grade levels.

In some schools housing multiple sections of each grade the principal follows the model of the less common small school, trying to relate to each teacher on an individual basis and not encouraging cooperative planning by the faculty within and across grade levels. Interchange among those affected by curriculum change is essential to intelligent and effective curriculum planning.

Curriculum matters that can be settled and contained within a team, grade, or department are handled at that level. However, curriculum planning sends out waves that affect, sometimes even engulf, persons beyond the planners and the client group for whom the plans were made.

Hence, we must look to the next level—the school level—for curriculum decision making that transcends the team, grade, or department.

The School Level

Although many curriculum decisions may be made at the classroom or team/grade/department level, other decisions can be reached only at a schoolwide level. The institution must provide some mechanism whereby the curriculum is articulated and integrated.

The administrator must ensure a process whereby the implications of curriculum decisions made

21 anywhere within the institution will be understood and, hopefully, agreed to by the faculty as a whole.

Of all the levels and sectors of curriculum planning, the individual school has emerged as the most critical. Current administrative philosophy promotes an approach to school administration known generally as “school-based (or site-based) management” in which authority is decentralized and the school principal is granted considerable autonomy over not only curriculum planning but also the budget, hiring and firing of school personnel, inservice education of staff, and supervision and evaluation of staff.11 Several writers have identified the individual school as the primary locus for curriculum change. Alice Miel long ago observed, “If really widespread participation is desirable, there appears to be no better way than to make the individual school the unit of participation, the primary action agency in curriculum development.”12 Almost forty years later Goodlad endorsed the concept of the school as the unit for improvement.13

The decade of the 1980s, with its quest for reform of the schools, saw many states shift more and more decision making to the state level as they grappled for ways to improve their schools. Local schools felt the pressure of state curricular mandates that in some cases went beyond the specification of subjects and units to the specification of instructional objectives to be accomplished at every level in every course.

Emphasis in the 1990s shifted away from heavy centralized state and district administration toward more responsibility for operation of the schools on the local school level.

Tight state budgets as well as educational reasons such as espousal of principles of school-based management accelerated the move toward decentralization from state to local level. Today

22 pressures, especially from the federal level’s No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, have forced states into renewing closer direction of their school systems.

The preceding chapter demonstrated that curriculum specialists conceive of curriculum development as a cooperative group undertaking. Given the many dimensions of the school administrator’s job, intensified by the concept of school-based management, a participatory approach to administration is sound not only philosophically but also practically. Shared decision making, whether in respect to curriculum planning or to other aspects of the administrator’s job, makes for a more efficient and effective school.

Foreign observers are often amazed, if not shocked, by the uniqueness of each American school. Two elementary schools in the same community, for example, may be completely different in ambience, student body, staffing, scheduling, resources, and to some extent, curricula. Achievement levels, motivation of the students, enthusiasm of the faculty, leadership skills of the principal, neighborhood, support from the parents, and curricular emphases make for differences from school to school. Consequently, Americans are not surprised when they find that organizational arrangements differ school by school within the nation, within the state, indeed, within the same locality. Educational diversity is both a blessing and a dilemma for curriculum planners. It is a strength of our system of education in that it permits schools to respond to needs evidenced in the individual school and locality. It presents a problem for curriculum workers who seek to create state and even national curricula that specify commonalities, minimal competencies, and proficiency levels.

Constituencies of the School. To varying degrees, the democratic process is accepted more and more in school systems across the country. Nowhere is its presence more clearly felt than in the participatory procedures that seek to involve the major constituencies of the school in curriculum

23 development. Usually identified as the principal constituencies are the administrators and their staffs, teachers, students, and citizens of the community. On occasion, nonprofessional employees of the school system are acknowledged in this way and become involved in the planning process—but rarely as major participants.

Some time ago Jack R. Frymier and Horace C. Hawn stated a principle that summarizes the belief in the necessity for involving persons in curriculum planning on a broad scale:

People Who Are Affected Must Be Involved. Involvement is a principle fundamental to

democracy and to learning theory. The very essence of democracy is predicated upon the

assumption that those who are affected by any change should have some say in

determining just what that change shall be. This is guaranteed in our political-social

system through citizen participation and through our efforts to persuade representatives

once they have been chosen. Devising ways of involving people in decision making is a

difficult and time-consuming chore, but unless decisions are made democratically they

will be less than the best. . . . Significant and lasting change can only come about by such

involvement. All who are affected by curriculum development and change must have a

genuine opportunity to participate in the process.14

Robert S. Zais raised a question, however, about the validity of the participatory model of curriculum decision making. Speaking of the democratic “grass-roots model,”15 Zais said:

The grass-roots model of curriculum engineering16 . . . is initiated by teachers in

individual schools, employs democratic group methods of decision making, proceeds on

a “broken front,” and is geared to the specific curriculum problems of particular schools

or even classrooms.

24 The intensely democratic orientation of the grass-roots model is responsible for

generating what have probably become the curriculum establishment’s two least-

questioned axioms: First, that a curriculum can be successfully implemented only if the

teachers have been intimately involved in the construction and development processes,

and second, that not only professional personnel, but students, parents, and other lay

members of the community must be included in the curriculum planning process. To

deny the validity of either of these claims (neither of which has been satisfactorily

demonstrated) is not necessarily to deny any role to teachers or lay participants; rather it

is to suggest the need to define more precisely the appropriate role that administrators,

teachers, curriculum specialists, and nonprofessionals should play in curriculum

engineering.17

Decisions and Organizational Patterns. Curriculum committees or councils exist in many schools. The school’s curriculum committee meets and makes recommendations on such matters as the following:

• adding new programs for the school, including interdisciplinary programs

• deleting existing programs

• revising existing programs

• increasing classroom use of computers throughout the school, including online

instruction and research

• conducting schoolwide surveys of teacher, student, and parental opinion

• evaluating the school’s curriculum

• planning ways to overcome curricular deficiencies

• planning for school accreditation

25 • choosing articulated series of textbooks

• using library and learning centers

• planning for exceptional children

• verifying the school’s compliance with state mandates and federal legislation•

sanctioning schoolwide events like career days and science fairs

• supervising assessment of student achievement

• reviewing recommendations of accrediting committees and planning for removal of

deficiencies

• reducing absenteeism

• increasing the holding power of the school

Although curriculum specialists may not agree to what degree they should encourage or permit the involvement of various constituencies, how each group will be constituted, and which group has the primary role, the literature on curriculum development almost unanimously endorses the concept of the democratic, participatory approach. Although it is possible that the collective judgment of specialists in the field could be in error, their judgments—based on experience, training, observation, and research—provide a foundation for accepting the validity of the democratic approach to curriculum development.

Several organizational arrangements exist on the school level for considering curriculum matters. Patterns differ regarding the degree to which the administrator shares decision making with teachers. We should not forget that in any organizational model in which decision making is shared, groups other than the duly appointed administrators serve only in advisory capacities.

Both professionally and legally the administrator does not and cannot surrender “line” authority for making ultimate decisions and supervising the staff. Patterns of organizing for curriculum

26 development at the local school level maintain the customary line-and-staff relationship that exists at the team/grade/department level and at the school district level.

In some school districts citizens of the community and students join forces with the faculty and administrators to produce collaborative patterns. Some principals keep the three constituencies separate. Others integrate all three constituencies into one expanded curriculum committee and incorporate the total faculty within the model.

Integrated, collaborative models appear the most democratic, but it would be wrong to conclude that it is, therefore, the most efficient. As anyone who has grappled with the concept of

“parity” as dictated by some federal programs—public school teachers, university specialists, and laypeople working together as equal partners from proposal stage to final evaluation—has discovered, “parity” is not necessarily the most efficient way to do business. In reference to the expanded curriculum committee the professionals—the teachers and administrators—must often talk a language filled with concepts that must be explained to lay citizens and students and must make distinctions between desired outcomes and processes. Technical decisions that must be made are often beyond the competence of lay citizens and students. Only if an expanded curriculum committee is composed of persons who are well informed about the processes of education and are highly motivated can this pattern meet with any degree of success.

Students and laypeople often participate with teachers and administrators on school-level committees. In the next chapter, we will examine the roles of these constituent groups in curriculum development. We might ask at this point: What are typical curriculum tasks of the schoolwide curriculum committee? The school curriculum committee or council must articulate its work with curriculum development efforts at the classroom and team/grade/department levels and, in effect, coordinate the work of lower levels. It receives proposals for curricular change

27 from the lower levels, especially proposals that affect more than one team, grade, or department or that are interdisciplinary in nature.

The school curriculum council considers proposals that require human and material resources, budgetary expenditures, and changes in staffing. The council conducts or supervises assessment of the educational needs of pupils. It coordinates the development of a statement of school philosophy. It specifies and regularly reviews curriculum goals and objectives for the school.

The curriculum council plans the evaluation of the curriculum. It studies results of student assessment and proposes changes based on the data gathered. The council studies the educational needs of the community and implements programs to meet legitimate needs. The council seeks solutions to short-range curricular problems while also establishing and refining long-range plans.

The council is both proactive and reactive in its manner of operating. Whereas it may react to proposals presented by both the principal and the faculty, it also generates its own proposals and possible solutions to curricular problems.

At the time of a pending school evaluation by a regional accreditation team, the curriculum council may act as a steering committee and assign specific tasks to various committees. The council coordinates an intensive self-study prior to the visit of the accrediting team.

The council must ensure articulation between and among the various teams, grades, and departments of the school, making certain that teachers are following agreed-upon sequences and meeting minimal prescribed objectives. Requests from higher levels and various sectors for the school’s cooperation on curriculum projects are routed to the curriculum council.

28 The local school curriculum council occupies a strategic position and fulfills a key role in the process of curriculum development. Of all groups at all levels and sectors of planning, the schoolwide curriculum council is in the position to make significant contributions to curriculum improvement.

Limitation to Decentralization. A decentralized site-based approach to management, per se, is no greater guarantee of successful curriculum making than is a centralized approach orchestrated by the district or state level. Michael G. Fullan called attention to the need for coordinating top- down and bottom-up strategies.18 Site-based management and shared decision making should not be perceived as the delegation of all authority and responsibility to the individual school. A bottom-up approach without cooperation of higher levels may be no more successful in effecting lasting curriculum improvement than a top-down approach without cooperation of lower levels.

Commented Fullan, “In sum, decentralized initiatives, as far as the evidence is concerned, are not faring much better than centralized reforms.”19 Efforts toward empowerment at the local level have sought to balance the heavier control formerly exerted by district and state levels. However, the local school cannot work in isolation. Collaboration among levels and sectors remains essential.

The School District Level

None of the previously discussed levels—classroom, team/grade/department, or individual school—can work as isolated units. They function within the context of the school district under the direction of the duly constituted school board and its administrative officer, the superintendent. Their efforts must be coordinated among themselves and with the central district office. Goals and objectives of the subordinate units must mesh with those of the district level.

29 Consequently, the superintendent must provide a mechanism whereby district-level curriculum planning may be conducted.

Curriculum planning on a districtwide level is often conducted through the district curriculum council composed of teachers, administrators, supervisors, laypersons, and, in some cases, students. The size of the district curriculum council and the extent of its representation depend on the size of the school district. Representatives may be either elected by members of their respective groups or appointed by district-level administrators, frequently on the recommendation of school principals.

Decisions and Organizational Patterns. Districtwide committees meet to consider problems such as these:

• adding new programs for the district

• abandoning districtwide programs

• reviewing student achievement in the various schools and recommending ways to

improve programs of any deficient schools

• writing or reviewing proposals for state and federal grants

• gathering data on student achievement for presentation to parent groups and lay advisory

councils

• supervising district compliance with state mandates and federal legislation

• recommending distribution of technological equipment among schools of the district

• evaluating programs on a districtwide basis

• articulating programs between levels

• instituting smaller schools and single-sex schools and classes

30 Patterns of organization at the school district level increase in complexity as the size of the school district increases. Some districts use a curriculum council composed of professionals only—administrators and supervisors named by the superintendent and teachers selected by their principals or elected by their faculties to represent them on the council. Subcommittees of professionals from anywhere in the school system are appointed by the curriculum council to conduct specific phases of curriculum development. The community advisory council serves in an advisory capacity to the superintendent and may or may not consider curriculum matters.

Subordinate school units are responsible to the superintendent through the principals.

Some school districts extend membership on the curriculum council to students and laypersons. Large urban school districts often break the organizational pattern into subordinate areas headed by area superintendents.

Sequence for Decision Making. We might visualize the sequence for decision making by the curriculum groups at the various levels within a school system in the form of waves starting in the individual teacher’s classroom and terminating with the district curriculum council, as pictured in Figure 3.4.

Teachers new to a school system should be informed by curriculum supervisors and/or mentors of the district’s structures for curriculum development. Teachers should be aware not only of the process of curriculum development in the district but also of the opportunities for curricular leadership.

Each level receives information, ideas, and proposals from the lower levels and, in turn, sends information, ideas, and proposals to them. Each level acts within the limitations of its own

“territory.” Councils at any level may initiate action as well as react to suggestions made to them.

Councils must be responsive to both subordinate and higher levels. If a council wishes to initiate

31 a plan that affects lower levels, it must involve persons from those levels beginning at the earliest planning stages. If a council wishes to initiate or endorse a plan that goes beyond its “territory” or that might be likely to create repercussions anywhere in the system, it must seek approval at higher levels.

INSERT FIGURE 3.4

Sequence of Decision Making

Before we discuss curriculum development at the next level—the state—we should consider the following observations about varying organizational patterns or models for curriculum development:

• Although an administrator—the principal or superintendent—is ordinarily depicted in

schematics at the top, organizational patterns should not be considered simply

administrative models in which orders are given by the administrator to his or her

subordinates. From administrator to curriculum committees, exchange should be a two-

way rather than a one-way process. The administrator holds the power for final decision

making and must take the consequences if decisions prove to be unwise. The

administrator’s presence at the top of a pattern does not in itself make the pattern

undemocratic.

The key difference between a democratic and an undemocratic process is the

involvement of people. No worthy administrator can turn over the decision-making

process completely to others, yet every administrator can seek to obtain the widest

possible participation of people in that process.

• Organizational patterns are but models that reflect the work of curriculum development to

be carried out by the professionals in the school system and by others whose aid they

32 solicit. Many patterns exist. Zais, for example, analyzed a number of existing and

proposed models for curriculum development.20

• Realistically, we must admit that a significant amount of curriculum change is brought

about outside of the established structure. Individual teachers and small committees often

effect changes that are well received and disseminated through the school system and

sometimes beyond. B. Frank Brown observed many years ago that a few teachers, by

their example, may be instrumental in bringing about curriculum revision, a process he

referred to as “spinning out.”21 The public and teachers’ organizations are often ahead of

the designated curriculum leaders.

• Patterns mentioned in this chapter are models of structure—the organizational

arrangements whereby the professionals and those who assist them may apply their

knowledge and skills to curriculum improvement. We should distinguish these

organizational patterns from models for the process of curriculum development, which

we will consider in Chapter 5.

The State Level

To many curriculum workers on the local and district levels, participation in curriculum development beyond their boundaries seems like a remote undertaking. Administrators, teachers, and others are aware, sometimes painfully, that curriculum revision does go on outside the school district and that it does have an impact on the schools of the district. Although state involvement in curricular and instructional development has varied over the years, relatively few school personnel in proportion to the number of employees are actively involved in curriculum making outside the district and then rarely on a sustaining basis.

33 As we move further and further away from the district level, the percentage of school personnel actively and continuously participating in curriculum development shrinks in size.

Were the state not in a superordinate position over the local school districts and were the state not directly responsible for the educational system within its borders, we should classify the state as a sector rather than a level. Clearly, however, under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution and under the state constitutions, the state holds primary power over education.

Channels within Education. The state operates in the arena of curriculum development through a number of channels within the education profession. The state department of education and school people from the various districts of the state who are called on to assist the state department of education constitute the professional channel for curriculum development under the aegis of the state.

State Departments of Education. The state department of education, often a large bureaucracy that is sometimes criticized for its size and power, exercises direct responsibility over the curriculum of the schools of the state. Led by a chief state school officer (superintendent or commissioner of education), the state department of education—an agency of the executive branch of the state government—consists of a number of assistant superintendents, heads of branches, curriculum specialists, and other staff members. The state department of education provides general leadership to the schools; it interprets, enforces, and monitors legislated regulations as well as its own regulations that attain the force of law.

The state department of education wields great power over the districts of the state. In curriculum matters it accredits and monitors school programs, disburses state and federal- through-state moneys for specific programs, enforces standards for high school graduation, and sets specifications for amounts of time to be devoted to specific content areas. The state

34 department of education develops statewide standards of philosophy, goals, and objectives.

Additionally, the state department of education makes available consultant help to the individual schools and districts and conducts evaluation of school programs.

At times, decisions are made on the state level without advance consultation with the local school personnel of the state. At other times, however, the state department of education seeks advice and assistance from individuals and from ad hoc committees that they create for the purpose of studying specific problems and recommending solutions. Administrators and teachers are often asked to participate in organizing, conducting, or attending conferences and workshops held throughout the state on specific topics—for example, drug abuse, programs for the physically challenged, eliminating gender discrimination, writing curriculum guides, conducting research studies, identifying teacher competencies, specifying minimal competencies that students are expected to achieve at each grade level, and selecting textbooks for state adoption.

The state department of education takes a leadership role in disseminating information regarding curriculum innovations and practices among the schools of the state. It issues both regular and periodic bulletins, monographs, and newsletters, frequently containing articles written by persons from local school districts, to keep school personnel throughout the state up- to-date on recent developments in curriculum, instruction, and other matters.

The state’s presence in all school matters is a commanding one especially in an era of emphasis on standards and testing.

State Professional Organizations. In a less formal way curriculum workers find opportunities for curriculum planning and consideration of curriculum problems through activities of the state professional organizations. Conference programs of such organizations as the state chapters of the National Council of Teachers of English, the National Council for the Social Studies, and the

35 Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development customarily focus on curriculum concerns. Although conference participants may engage in curriculum planning in only the most rudimentary and often passive way, the sharing of curriculum ideas often lays the groundwork for subsequent curriculum reform. This type of curriculum activity cannot, of course, be equated with more structured efforts under the state department of education. Nor can we truly label the examination of curriculum problems by state professional organizations as a level of planning since no element of authority exists in this type of voluntary activity. More appropriately, the state professional organizations constitute a sector that seeks to effect curriculum change through research, example, and persuasion. Nevertheless, we would be remiss if we did not credit state professional organizations for the influence they often exert in bringing about changes in the curriculum of the local school systems of the state.

Channels outside of Education. Other departments of the executive branch, the state legislature, and the state judicial branch form channels outside the profession of education that have an impact on the curriculum of all the schools of the state. Within the executive branch the governor and the state board of education wield tremendous power over the state educational system. The governor presents a budget to the legislature in which he or she recommends supporting or curtailing programs. The state board sets policies that bind all the schools of the state.

Legislative Decisions. State legislatures throughout the country consistently demonstrate a penchant for curriculum making. Mandates from the state legislatures in some cases with leadership from the executive branch have been the prime movers for educational reform in the

1980s and early 1990s. Since the 1990s states have been reviewing their educational system,

36 making modifications, for example, in requirements for high school graduation and assessments of educational achievement.

The legislature of the state of Florida provides an example of legislative curriculum making.

Among the many curriculum prescriptions are the following extractions from Florida statutes.

Florida Statute 233.061, addressing a wide variety of designated needs, required instruction on the following:

Declaration of Independence

Arguments in support of a republican form of government

U.S. Constitution and its relation to government structure

Flag education, including proper display and salute

The elements of civil government

History of the Holocaust

History of African Americans

The elementary principles of agriculture

The true effects of all alcoholic and intoxicating liquors, beverages, and narcotics

Kindness to animals

The history of the state

The conservation of natural resources

Comprehensive health education

The study of Hispanic contributions to the United States

The study of women’s contributions to the United States

Florida Statute 233.0612, authorized school districts to provide the following instruction:

Character development and law education

37 The objective study of the Bible and religion

Traffic education

Free enterprise and consumer education

Programs to encourage patriotism and greater respect for country

Drug abuse resistance education

Comprehensive health education

Care of nursing home patients

Acquired immune deficiency syndrome

Voting instruction, including the use of county voting machines

Before-school and after-school programs

In mandating character-development education in the spring of 1999 the Florida legislature became very specific, stipulating for the elementary schools a secular character- development program similar to those of Character Counts!22

Florida Statute 229.57, made sweeping provision, later modified, for state assessment of student progress when it directed the state commissioner of education to:

Develop and administer in the public schools a uniform, statewide program of assessment

to determine, periodically, educational status and progress and the degree of achievement

of approved minimum performance standards. The uniform statewide program shall

consist of testing in grades 3, 5, 8, and 11. . . .

Although some legislation is a result of grassroots movement within the state and some statutes evolve from recommendations made by the state superintendent of public instruction and the state department of education, many acts of the state legislature stem from the personal beliefs and desires of the legislators themselves. Even the state judicial branch finds itself

38 entangled in curriculum decision making from time to time. Two famous cases may serve to illustrate involvement of the state courts in curriculum making.

The Supreme Court of Michigan ruled in 1874 in a case brought against the school district of Kalamazoo by a taxpayer of that community that the school board of Kalamazoo could, indeed, spend public funds to provide a secondary school education for youth of their district.23

In 1927 the Supreme Court of Tennessee replied to the appeal of defense attorneys of

John Thomas Scopes of the world-famous “monkey trial” by upholding the constitutionality of the Tennessee law that forbade teaching in the public schools any theory that denied human creation by a Divine Being.24 Periodically, state legislatures have attempted to mandate the teaching of “scientific creationism” or, more currently, “intelligent design” in the public schools as a counterbalance to the theory of evolution. The scientific creationism/evolution issue, to which we will return in Chapter 15, continues to surface in some state executive and legislative bodies.

SECTORS BEYOND THE STATE

When curriculum planners leave the state level and move onto the broader scene, they work in quite a different context. Participation in planning in the regional, national, and international sectors is ordinarily a voluntary activity. Except in the case of federal legislation, information sharing and persuasion rather than statutory power are the tools of the regional, national, and international sectors. No assurance of any kind exists that curriculum decisions reached in these sectors will or can be put into operation in the schools.

39 Although fewer opportunities exist for curriculum workers to engage in planning in the regional, national, and international sectors, the opportunities that do arise can be exciting for the participants.

The Regional Sector

Participation in planning in the regional, national, and international sectors is not comparable to that in the previously described levels. On occasion, curriculum specialists of a particular region of the United States, from around the nation, or even from a number of foreign countries may assemble and develop curriculum materials that they will then disseminate or try out in their own schools. Notable illustrations of this type of cooperative endeavor were the efforts of the scholars from various parts of the country who in the late 1950s developed the so- called new math and new science programs.

As a general rule, curriculum activities in the regional, national, and international sectors are more likely to consist of sharing problems, exchanging practices, reporting research, and gathering information. Conferences of the professional organizations—for example, the South

Atlantic Modern Language Association—are the most common vehicle whereby school personnel participate in regional curriculum study. With considerable frequency teachers, administrators, and curriculum specialists are invited to take part in the activities of the regional associations (New England, Middle States, North Central, Northwest, Southern, and Western) that accredit schools and colleges. This participation consists of three types. First, participants are elected or invited to serve on various committees and commissions of the associations—for example, the Commission on Elementary Schools, the Commission on Secondary Schools, and the regional associations’ state committees. Second, committees of professionals review, revise, and write for each subject area the criteria that schools follow in evaluating their programs. The

40 third and most extensive of the three types of participation is service on accreditation visiting committees that go into schools in the region to ascertain strengths and weaknesses of the schools’ programs and to make recommendations for improvements and accreditation of the schools.

Much of the participation in which school personnel take part in the regional sector falls into the category of curriculum evaluation in contrast to planning or implementation of the curriculum.

The National Sector

The U.S. Congress. Although education in the United States is a function reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, we cannot minimize the profound effect of congressional legislation on the administration and curriculum of our schools. The Congress has engaged in curriculum development with passage of laws related to reading, bilingual education, vocational education, exceptionalities, and gender, to name but a few areas of congressional interest.

The Congress occasionally takes focus on topics that it wishes included in the curriculum, for example, by slipping a notice in an omnibus appropriation bill in 2004 requiring all schools to conduct a program every year on Constitution Day, September 17 (or during the preceding or following week if September 17 falls on a weekend or holiday), to teach about the U.S.

Constitution.

U.S. Department of Education. The national scene is peppered with a variety of public, private, and professional curriculum activities, and school personnel from the state level and below play key roles in some of these activities. In the public governmental sector, the Department of

Education exercises a strong influence. Called the United States Office of Education until

41 education was separated from the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1980 during President Jimmy Carter’s administration, the Department of Education with its large bureaucracy gathers data, disseminates information, provides consultative assistance, sponsors and conducts research, funds projects, and disburses money appropriated by Congress. Local school people find the opportunity to participate in national curriculum efforts by writing and submitting proposals for grants to conduct curricular research or to put particular programs into operation in their school systems.

Federal Funding. To choose recipients of funds for proposals awarded competitively, the

Department of Education calls in readers who are specialists in the particular fields in which grants are being given. These readers evaluate and make recommendations on proposals to be awarded by the specific office within the Department of Education. Persons from all over the

United States journey to Washington (or sometimes to other sites) to read proposals. In so doing, they grow professionally and bring back new ideas for curriculum development in their own institutions.

Federal funding permits numerous committees to carry out curriculum projects that the

U.S. Congress deems significant. Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965

(which later became Chapter 1 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981), for example, provided for programs to aid the culturally disadvantaged. The No Child Left

Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), an extension of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, included among its titles an initiative known as Reading First, which provided grants to the states to improve reading standards. To promote the Reading First Program during the winter of

2002, the U.S. Department of Education conducted three Reading First Leadership Academies for state policymakers and educational leaders. Possible loss of federal funding under NCLB has

42 motivated, some would say “pressured,” school systems throughout the country to strive to raise all students to “proficiency level” as determined by state tests, to secure “highly qualified” teachers, and to offer alternative arrangements for children who are not making “adequate yearly progress.”

Grants from the federal government over the years have enabled national study groups to prepare curriculum materials, some of which (as in foreign languages, mathematics, and science) have been used extensively.

Federal aid has stimulated and resulted in the involvement of curriculum workers both directly as participants and indirectly as consumers of products and services of the Educational

Resources Information Center (ERIC), the Regional Educational Laboratories, Research and

Development Centers, and the National Centers within the U.S. Department of Education’s

Institute of Education Sciences.25

Local schools in various regions of the country have participated in curriculum evaluation on a national scale through the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which is funded by the Institute of Education Sciences. Under the direction of the National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP), objectives have been specified, criterion-referenced measurement instruments have been created, and assessments have been conducted in a number of subject areas.26 From these data curriculum developers in the local school systems can draw inferences about appropriate objectives of the areas tested, achievements of pupils in their region as compared to other regions, and their own state and local assessment programs.

Historically, the U.S. Department of Education has exercised a degree of leadership in curriculum development for the schools of the nation. Downsizing of government for budgetary and political reasons set in with such force at the federal level during the 1990s that in the spring

43 of 1995 the survival of the U.S. Department of Education was in doubt. Supervising the provisions of NCLB, however, plays a strong role in current attempts to reform American education.

In this discussion of curriculum efforts on a national scale, I have mentioned the executive branch of the U.S. government (the Department of Education) and the legislative branch (the Congress). We should not neglect to note that on occasion the judicial branch of the federal government assumes the role of curriculum maker. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that public schools may not conduct sectarian practices,27 that released time for religious instruction under certain conditions is permissible,28 that the theory of evolution may be taught,29 that special instruction in English must be given to non-English-speaking pupils,30 that prayer in the public schools is a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,31 and that Cleveland’s school voucher program does not infringe on the principle of separation of church and state.32 The U.S. Supreme Court justices do not seek the role of curriculum specialists but by virtue of the cases that come before them sometimes find themselves in that role.

Professional Education Associations. The professional education associations afford opportunities for educators to engage in curriculum deliberations. The National Education

Association (NEA) has repeatedly called together influential groups to evaluate purposes and programs of the schools. The NEA’s Committee of Ten, for example, issued a report in 1893 that recommended the same courses (foreign languages, history, mathematics, and science) and the same allotment of time for each course for both college-bound and non-college-bound students.33

Decker F. Walker and Jonas F. Soltis commented on the influence of the Committee of Ten’s report:

44 Even today, the college preparatory high school curriculum in most schools strongly

resembles the recommendations made by this Committee a hundred years ago.34

One of the more significant attempts at curriculum decision making at the national level was the National Education Association’s appointment of the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education, which produced in 1918 one of the most influential and foresighted documents in the history of American education. The document, Cardinal Principles of

Secondary Education, made nineteen generalizations or principles, some of which applied at all levels of education. In speaking of the role of secondary education in achieving the main objectives of education the Commission listed (in Principle IV) seven objectives that have become widely known and discussed as the Seven Cardinal Principles.35

These seven objectives were:

1. health

2. command of fundamental processes [currently known as the basic skills]

3. worthy home membership

4. vocation

5. citizenship

6. worthy use of leisure

7. ethical character

The Commission’s report, possessing no authority other than its persuasiveness, was broadly received and accepted as a valid statement of goals for secondary education of its time.

Many high schools have attempted to implement the Commission’s Cardinal Principles.

Although some criticism of the Seven Cardinal Principles exists, many educators feel that this

45 statement of the purposes of secondary education is as relevant today as it was when first issued so many years ago.36

Between 1938 and 1961 the prestigious Educational Policies Commission of the National

Education Association formulated statements of the purposes of education. Three of these statements have had an enduring effect on American education. In 1938 the Educational Policies

Commission defined the purposes of education as fourfold: self-realization, human relationship, economic efficiency, and civic responsibility. 37 Six years later, in the midst of World War II, the

Educational Policies Commission released its report Education for All American Youth, which set forth ten imperative needs of American youth.38

Refining the earlier Seven Cardinal Principles, the Educational Policies Commission in

1944 stated the purposes of secondary education as follows:

1. All youth need to develop salable skills.

2. All youth need to develop and maintain good health, physical fitness, and mental health.

3. All youth need to understand the rights and duties of the citizen of a democratic society.

4. All youth need to understand the significance of the family.

5. All youth need to know how to purchase and use goods and services intelligently.

6. All youth need to understand the methods of science.

7. All youth need opportunities to develop their capacities to appreciate beauty in literature,

art, and music.

8. All youth need to be able to use their leisure time well.

9. All youth need to develop respect for other people, to grow in their insight into ethical

values and principles, to be able to live and work cooperatively with others, and to grow

in the moral and spiritual values of life.

46 10. All youth need to grow in their ability to think rationally, to express their thoughts

clearly, and to read and listen with understanding.39

Once again, this time in 1961, the Educational Policies Commission turned its attention to the purposes of education and decided that the central purpose of American education was to develop the ability to think.40

On the current scene, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

(ASCD), a professional association with a special interest in curriculum improvement, engages its members and others in numerous curriculum studies. It disseminates the results of studies through its journals, yearbooks, and monographs. Of special help to persons interested in the curriculum field are the ASCD’s National Curriculum Study Institutes in which participants under the leadership of recognized experts focus on particular curriculum problems. Its online newsletter Smart Brief, five days a week, provides links to articles in the press on significant up- to-the-minute educational events and issues.

Development of curricula in certain specialized fields has been made possible by the

National Science Foundation in cooperation with professional associations. The National Science

Foundation, the American Mathematical Society, the National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics, and the Mathematical Association of America joined forces in the 1950s to produce the School Mathematics Study Group (SMSG) program for grades four through twelve.

Involved in the production of this program were mathematicians, mathematics educators, and high school teachers. At about the same time and through a similar collaborative effort, the

American Institute of Biological Sciences, with financial backing by the National Science

Foundation, brought forth the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) programs (in three versions) for high school biology.

47 Professional education organizations have made and continue to make significant contributions to the curriculum field.

Private Foundations and Business Corporations. Over the years a goodly number of private foundations and organizations sponsored by business and industrial corporations have demonstrated a keen interest in supporting projects designed to improve education in the United

States. The Ford Foundation has given generous backing to experimentations with novel staff patterns in the schools and the use of educational television. The Kellogg Foundation has zeroed in on studies of educational administration. As examples of foundations’ interest in the curriculum of the schools we might mention the Carnegie Corporation’s support in the field of mathematics and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation’s aid in the field of science. In the early 1950s the Carnegie Corporation financially aided professors in arts and sciences, education, and engineering at the University of Illinois to develop a school mathematics program for grades nine through twelve, which became known as the University of Illinois Committee on School

Mathematics (UICSM) math. Shortly thereafter, in the late 1950s, the Carnegie Corporation funded another mathematics project: the development of a program for grades seven and eight by teachers of mathematics, mathematicians, and mathematics educators at the University of

Maryland.

The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation entered into curriculum development in the late 1950s by supporting, along with the National Science Foundation and the Ford Foundation’s Fund for the

Advancement of Education, the production of a new program for high school physics known as

Physical Science Study Committee (PSSC) physics.

Several observations can be made about these illustrations of national curriculum development in mathematics and science. First, these programs were created through the

48 collaboration of scholars and practitioners, professors and teachers, combinations that have been tried with rather low frequency, unfortunately. Second, all these undertakings took considerable effort and cost a significant amount of money. Without the largesse of the federal government, public and private foundations, and professional organizations, these materials would most probably never have seen the light of day. Third, as you may have already noted, all these aforementioned developments occurred in the decade of the 1950s and continued into the early

1960s. The 1950s were a time when there was a great deal of ferment in education, and money flowed into educational pursuits as if from the proverbial horn of plenty. As a response to the technology of the former Soviet Union and in the name of national defense, the availability of funds for educational projects and research made the 1950s a heady time for educators. No such concerned collaborative activity on such a broad scale has occurred since, and we may well ponder whether it is ever likely to happen again. Finally and most significantly, in spite of the curriculum fervor of the 1950s (Could it be because of the fervor of the 1950s?), some of the new math and new science programs have gone into eclipse, causing us to muse with François

Villon, “Where are the snows of yesteryear?”

In the 1980s the Carnegie Corporation with the Atlantic Richfield Foundation funded the study of American high schools directed by Ernest L. Boyer, president of the Carnegie

Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.41 Six philanthropic foundations—the Charles E.

Culpepper Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, the Commonwealth Fund, the Esther A. and

Joseph Klingenstein Fund, the Gates Foundation, and the Edward John Noble Foundation— supported Theodore R. Sizer’s study of the American high school. Cosponsors of Sizer’s study were the National Association of Secondary School Principals and the National Association of

Independent Schools.42

49 Funds for John Goodlad’s study of schooling in America were provided by eleven foundations, including the Danforth Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the International Paper

Company Foundation, the JDR3rd Fund, the Martha Holden Jennings Foundation, the Charles F.

Kettering Foundation, the Lilly Endowment, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the

Needmore Fund, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Spencer Foundation; funding was also provided by Pedamorphosis, Inc., the National Institute of Education, and the U.S. Office of

Education.43

The Danforth Foundation, which long concerned itself with professional growth and development of secondary school administrators, has over the years also taken an interest in promoting international education in the schools. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur

Foundation aided the Paideia Group, which issued the Paideia Proposal, calling for the same course of study for all students in the twelve years of basic schooling, the only exception being the choice of a second language.44

In recent years Microsoft Corporation has made available without charge to K–12 schools software to enable them to become familiar with the Internet. Microsoft joined forces with MCI to offer schools the opportunity to establish an informative Web page or register Web pages with

Global SchoolNet Foundation’s Global Schoolhouse. Presently, the Bill and Melinda Gates

Foundation lends support in the fields of education, as, for example, with its Gates Millennium

Scholars Program and efforts to promote smaller schools, and global health, as, for example, combating AIDS. The Oklahoma Foundation for Excellence has directed efforts to prevent students from dropping out of school and made awards recognizing excellence among students and teachers in the public schools of Oklahoma while the Steppingstone Foundation has sought to help scholars in Boston and Philadelphia schools. The DeWitt- Wallace Reader’s Digest Fund

50 has extended grants to nonprofit charitable organizations that seek to improve opportunities and services for youth in the areas of education and career development.

You can readily see that private foundations and business corporations play a significant role in promoting change in the school’s curriculum.

Other Influential Voices. In 1990 President George H. W. Bush and the National Governors

Association set forth six national educational goals that resulted in the America 2000 legislation.

Expanding on the Bush reform efforts, the U.S. Congress in 1994 enacted President Bill

Clinton’s educational reform package known as Goals 2000 Educate America Act, which added two goals beyond the earlier six and authorized funding to promote achievement of those goals.

Further educational reform is the goal of the No Child Left Behind Act passed by the U.S.

Congress in 2001 and signed into law by President George W. Bush in January 2002. We will return to these goals and their significance in Chapter 6.

Tests and Texts. Before we leave the national sector, we should mention an aspect of curriculum development that has evoked considerable discussion. Standardized tests of achievement and textbooks used in the schools have played a great part in molding the contemporary curriculum. Combined with the movement toward specification of competencies for high school graduation, achievement tests profoundly affect what is being taught and how it is being taught. Under these conditions, curriculum decisions have been, in effect, put into the hands of the test makers and textbook writers. Some curriculum experts see the reliance on tests and textbooks marketed throughout the country as constituting a “national curriculum.” As long ago as 1985, Elliot W. Eisner expressed concern about the influence of the testing movement:

One may wax eloquent about the life of the mind and the grand purposes of education,

but must face up to the fact that school programs are shaped by other factors as well.

51 Communities led to believe that the quality of education is represented by the reading and

math scores students receive come to demand that those areas of the curriculum be given

the highest priority. When this happens, teachers begin to define their own priorities in

terms of test performance. Indeed, I do not believe it is an exaggeration to say that test

scores function as one of the most powerful controls on the character of educational

practice.45

State testing required under the terms of NCLB today reinforces Eisner’s observation.

Other educators identify federal aid for specific categories as creating types of national curricula.

Considerable activity in planning, implementing, and evaluating curriculum transpires in the national sector. Although curriculum activities on the national scene are many and diverse, opportunities for personal involvement are rather limited for the rank-and-file teacher and curriculum specialist. Their roles are more often as recipients of curriculum plans developed by others, implementers of plans, and sometimes evaluators.

The Public. We would be remiss if we did not include the public in our survey of groups that influence curriculum development. We have but to examine some of the controversial issues discussed in Chapter 15 as evidence of public participation in efforts to change the curriculum.

Most often the public’s efforts are diffuse with subgroups advocating change of one type whereas other subgroups take opposite positions. The public’s views, however, succeed in effecting change when issues are put before them, albeit from legislator-curriculum planners, in the form of proposals to be voted on by the voting public. The electorate of California, for example, in the spring of 1998 voted to remove bilingual education from the public schools.

Citizens of Florida in 2002 approved a highly controversial amendment to the state constitution limiting class size in all grades.

52 The International Sector

International Professional Associations. Involvement of American curriculum workers on the international scene is made possible through membership in international professional associations, primarily those based in the United States. The International Reading Association, for example, attracts reading specialists from around the world but primarily from the United

States and Canada. The World Council for Gifted and Talented Children holds conferences in various parts of the world. Two of the more pertinent international organizations for individuals interested in curricular activities on a cross-national scale are the World Council for Curriculum and Instruction and the International Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies.

The American Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies is a member of the latter.

Sponsoring periodic conferences in various parts of the world, these international organizations offer opportunities for individuals interested in curriculum studies to exchange ideas and develop an understanding of one another’s educational systems and problems.

If teachers and administrators are willing to spend a period of time abroad, they can become intimately involved in curriculum development overseas by accepting employment in the U.S. Department of Defense Schools (which, given current retrenchments in the defense establishment, are shrinking in numbers) or in the private American Community/International

Schools whose curricula are mainly those offered stateside. Or they may become active in developing curricula of foreign national schools through employment with the Peace Corps or the Agency for International Development.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), with headquarters in Paris, affords opportunities for curriculum study, research, teaching, and technical assistance from members of the United Nations. The Institute of International

53 Education in New York City directs an international exchange of students and teachers supported in part by Fulbright funds. The Council for International Exchange of Scholars in Washington,

D.C., administers Fulbright grants that enable faculty from institutions of higher education to conduct research and teach in foreign countries.

Opportunities for firsthand participation in actual curriculum construction on a cross- national basis are rare, and this dearth of opportunity is, perhaps, to be expected. The curricular needs and goals of education in various countries are so divergent as to make impractical the building of a particular curriculum that will fit the requirements of the educational system of every country.

International Studies of Student Achievement. Significant efforts primarily in the realm of assessment of student achievement should be noted. Studies comparing achievement of students in a number of countries and in a variety of disciplines have been conducted by the International

Association for Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) and the International Assessment of Educational Progress (IAEP). You will find discussion of international comparative studies in

Chapter 12 of this text.

Comparative Textbook Studies. One of the more interesting international curriculum studies of modern times was the United States and the then USSR Textbook-Study Project sponsored by the National Council for the Social Studies, the Council of Chief State School Officers, the

Association of American Publishers, the Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, and the former Soviet Union’s Ministry of Education.46 Begun in 1977 as a phase of cultural exchange agreements between the two countries, the project ceased functioning after the Soviet march into Afghanistan in 1979. The project resumed operation in 1985, drafted a report in 1987, and presented a subsequent report on the conclusion of a seminar in Moscow in 1989.

54 Educators from both countries examined history and geography textbooks used in the secondary schools of each country to ascertain what one nation’s students were taught about the other nation. These educators searched for errors of fact and distortions in the textbooks. Project efforts pointed to the need for textbooks published in each country to present a more accurate picture of the other country. The need for comparative studies of this nature is revealed and reinforced by China’s protest in 2005 over Japan’s junior high school textbooks that minimize

Japan’s destructive role in China during World War II. This exciting approach to international curriculum study could well furnish a model that the United States could and, I believe, should replicate with other countries.

Global Awareness. The frenzied pace of economic and technological globalization increases the need for a curriculum and international exchange of students and teachers to foster global awareness and understanding.

Various commissions and organizations such as the President’s Commission on Foreign

Languages and International Studies (1970s)47 and the National Commission on Excellence in

Education (1980s)48 have promoted the teaching of foreign languages as one dimension of global education. Problems on an international scale from global warming to military conflicts have caused Americans to recognize the necessity for learning about the culture of other peoples, sharing ideas, and working cooperatively.

A rationale for global education was the focus of the 1991 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. The Yearbook includes descriptions of ways to introduce global studies into the curriculum.49

Although opportunities for actual curriculum development on the international scene are limited, many opportunities exist for school personnel to study and compare curricula of the

55 world’s nations. Professional organizations like Phi Delta Kappa, the National Education

Association, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, and the Comparative and International Education Society conduct frequent study tours for those interested in examining firsthand the curricula of other countries and meeting their educational leaders. Many teachers have taken advantage of opportunities to serve as leaders of educational study tours abroad. Furthermore, development of both awareness and understanding of other cultures (both within and outside of our borders) remains a high priority of our elementary and secondary curricula. Through exchange of personnel, countries come to realize that they have much to learn from each other not only in education but in other dimensions of living as well.

SUMMARY

Curriculum planning is viewed as occurring on five levels: classroom, team/grade/department, individual school, school district, and state. Each level in ascending order exercises authority over levels below it.

In addition, planning takes place in regional, national, and world sectors. Sectors are distinguished from levels because powers of the sectors over the five levels are nonexistent or limited.

Teachers and curriculum specialists will find their most frequent opportunities to participate actively in curriculum development at the first four levels. Some curriculum workers are called on by the state to serve on curriculum projects. A limited number of school-based persons take part in a variety of curriculum efforts sponsored by regional, national, and international organizations and agencies.

56 This chapter discusses a variety of organizational patterns for carrying out curriculum activities in the individual school and school district. A teacher or curriculum specialist may be requested to serve on a number of curriculum committees and councils within a school system.

Forces outside the schools also influence curriculum decision making. Curriculum development is perceived as a multilevel, multisector process and as a collaborative effort.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1. To what degree should teachers be involved in curriculum planning at the individual

school level? at the district level?

2. What are the strengths and limitations of the concept of levels of planning?

3. What are the strengths and limitations of the concept of sectors of planning?

4. What do you believe is the best way for organizing a curriculum council on the individual

school level?

5. What do you believe is the best way for organizing a curriculum council on the school

district level?

EXERCISES

1. Chart the organizational pattern for curriculum development in your school and district.

2. Write a short paper describing the extent to which the organizational patterns operating in

your school system can be called participatory.

3. Tell how curriculum committees and councils, if any, are selected and constituted in your

school district.

57 4. Describe any curricular changes within the last three years brought about by an individual

teacher in his or her classroom.

5. Describe activities of a team, grade, or department of a school faculty in the last three

years in the area of curriculum development.

6. Describe the roles and powers of (a) the state superintendent of public instruction, (b) the

state board of education, and (c) the state department of education in curricular and

instructional matters within your state.

7. Study an organizational chart of your state department of education and identify those

offices that are charged with providing curricular and instructional leadership in the state.

Describe some of the services of these offices.

8. Report on several programs that have come about or been affected as a result of state

legislation.

9. Describe any curriculum developments that have come about as a result of regional

activities.

10. Report on the purposes and activities of the accrediting associations of your region.

11. Report on several programs that have come about or been affected as a result of federal

legislation.

12. Describe any support that may have come to schools of your community and/or state

from private foundations or business/industrial corporations.

13. Report on any national curriculum studies that you would call significant.

14. Report on at least two state and two federal court decisions that have had an impact on

the curriculum of your school system.

58 15. Describe any curriculum development in your school that might be attributed to

international influences.

16. Report on the purposes and recent activities of at least two state, two national, and two

international professional organizations concerned with curriculum development.

17. Write a description of the processes by which textbooks are selected in your state or

district.

18. If you work in a private school and if your school is accredited by an association or

associations other than the regional association, describe the purpose and activities of that

association or associations.

19. In Chapter 11 of his book, John D. McNeil (see bibliography) discusses the politics of

curriculum making. Report several ways in which curriculum making is a political

process.

20. Describe what Michael W. Apple meant by “Curriculum . . . is the social product of

contending forces.” (See bibliography.) See also Chapter 4, “Understanding Curriculum

as Political Text,” in William F. Pinar et al. (see bibliography).

21. Describe any program of global studies in any school with which you are familiar or that

you can find in the literature.

ORGANIZATIONS

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1703 N. Beauregard St., Alexandria,

Va. 22311- 1714. Journals: Educational Leadership and Journal of Curriculum and

Supervision. Website: http://www .ascd.org.

59 National Education Association, 1201 16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Journal: NEA

Today. Website: http://www.nea.org.

Phi Delta Kappa, Box 789, Bloomington, Ind. 47402. Journal: Phi Delta Kappan. Website:

http://www .pdkint.org.

WEBSITES

American Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies: http://aaacs.info

American Association of School Administrators: http:// aasa.org

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Smart Brief:

http://wwwsmartbrief.com/ascd

Coalition of Essential Schools: http://essentialschools .org

Comparative and International Education Society: http:// www.cies.ws

Council for International Exchange of Scholars: http:// www.cies.org

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: http://www.gates foundation.org

Global School Net Foundation: http://www.globalschool net.org

Institute of International Education: http://www.iie.org

International Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies: http://www.iaacs.org

International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement: http://www.iea.nl

National Assessment of Educational Progress: http://nces .ed.gov/nationsreportcard

National Association of Elementary School Principals: http://www.naesp.org

National Association of Independent Schools: http://www .nais.org

National Association of Secondary School Principals: http://www.nassp.org

National Middle School Association: http://www.nmsa .org

60 United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization: http://www.unesco.org

U.S. Department of Education: http://www.ed.gov

World Council for Curriculum and Instruction: http:// www.wcci-international.org

World Council for Gifted and Talented Children: http:// www.worldgifted.ca

ENDNOTES

61 1 Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974). 2 Earl C. Kelley, Education for What Is Real (New York: Harper & Row, 1947). 3 Ralph W. Tyler, Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949). 4 Benjamin S. Bloom, ed., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook I: Cognitive Domain (White Plains, N.Y.: Longman, 1956). Benjamin S. Bloom, J. Thomas Hastings, and George F. Madaus, Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971). 5 James B. Conant, The American High School Today (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959). 6 Jerome S. Bruner, The Process of Education (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960). 7 Theodore R. Sizer, Horace’s Compromise: The Dilemma of the American High School (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1984). 8 John I. Goodlad, A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future (New York: McGraw- Hill, 1984). 9 Adapted from Peter F. Oliva, The Secondary School Today, 2nd ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1972), p. 280. 10 See Chapter 9 of this text for a discussion of the graded school, open-space schools, team teaching, and other organizational arrangements. 11 See Priscilla Wohlstetter, “Getting School-Based Management Right: What Works and What Doesn’t,” Phi Delta Kappan 77, no. 1 (September 1995): 22–26. 12 Alice Miel, Changing the Curriculum: A Social Process (New York: D. Appleton Century, 1946), p. 69. 13 Goodlad, A Place Called School, pp. 31 and 318– 319. 14 Jack R. Frymier and Horace C. Hawn, Curriculum Improvement for Better Schools (Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones, 1970), pp. 28–29. 15 Zais attributes the classification “grass-roots model” to B. Othanel Smith, William O. Stanley, and J. Harlan Shores, Fundamentals of Curriculum Development (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1957). See Robert S. Zais, Curriculum: Principles and Foundations (New York: Harper & Row, 1976), p. 448. 16 Zais refers to the definition of “curriculum engineering” by George A. Beauchamp, Curriculum Theory, 2nd ed. (Wilmette, Ill.: Kagg Press, 1968), and uses the term to encompass “curriculum construction,” “curriculum development,” and “curriculum implementation.” Zais, Curriculum, p. 18. See also the third edition of Beauchamp’s Curriculum Theory (1975), Chapter 7. 17 Zais, Curriculum, pp. 448–449. 18 Michael G. Fullan, “Coordinating Top-Down and Bottom-Up Strategies for Educational Reform,” in Richard F. Elmore and Susan H. Fuhrman, eds., The Governance of Curriculum, 1994 Yearbook (Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1994), pp. 186–202. 19 Ibid., p. 189. 20 Zais, Curriculum, Chapter 19. 21 B. Frank Brown, The Nongraded High School (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963), pp. 209– 210. 22 See Chapter 6 for reference to Character Counts! Coalition. 23 Stuart v. School District No. 1, Village of Kalamazoo, 30 Mich. 69 (1874). 24 See Lyon Sprague de Camp, The Great Monkey Trial (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968). 25 For recent lists of centers and laboratories see the Appendix. 26 See Chapter 12 of this text for additional details about the National Assessment of Educational Progress. 27 Illinois ex rel McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 US 203, 68 S Ct. 461 (1948). 28 Zorach v. Clauson, 343 US 306, 72 S. Ct. 679 (1952). 29 Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 US 97, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968). 30 Lau v. Nichols, 414 US 663 (1974). 31 School District of Abington Township, Pa. v. Schempp & Murray v. Curlett, 374 US 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560 (1963). 32 Zolman et al. v. Simmons-Harris et al. 536 US 639 (2002). 33 National Education Association, Report of the Committee of Ten on Secondary School Studies (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1893). 34 Decker F. Walker and Jonas F. Soltis, Curriculum and Aims, 4th ed. (New York: Teachers College Press, 2004), p. 28. 35 Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education, Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education (Washington, D.C.: United States Office of Education, Bulletin no. 35, 1918), pp. 5–10. 36 For criticism of the Seven Cardinal Principles, see Chapter 9 of this text. 37 Educational Policies Commission, The Purposes of Education in American Democracy (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1938). 38 Educational Policies Commission, Education for All American Youth (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1944). 39 Educational Policies Commission, American Youth, pp. 225–226. 40 Educational Policies Commission, The Central Purpose of American Education (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1961). 41 Ernest L. Boyer, High School: A Report on Secondary Education in America (New York: Harper & Row, 1983). 42 Theodore R. Sizer, Horace’s Compromise: The Dilemma of the American High School (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1984). 43 Goodlad, A Place Called School. 44 Mortimer J. Adler, The Paideia Proposal: An Educational Manifesto (New York: Macmillan, 1982). 45 Elliot W. Eisner, The Educational Imagination: On the Design and Evaluation of School Programs, 2nd ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1985), p. 4. 46 Robert Rothman, “Americans, Soviets Critique Texts.” Education Week 7, no. 12 (November 25, 1987): 5; and Oliva’s correspondence from the National Council for the Social Studies, dated December 4, 1990. 47 See Malcolm G. Scully, “Require Foreign-Language Studies, Presidential Panel Urges Colleges,” The Chronicle of Higher Education 19, no. 11 (November 13, 1979): 1 ff. 48 National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983), p. 26. 49 Kenneth A. Tye, ed., Global Education: From Thought to Action. 1991 Yearbook (Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1990). See also “The World in the Classroom,” Educational Leadership 60, no. 2 (October 2002): 6–69 and Sharon Lynn Kagan and Vivien Stewart, eds., “Education in a Global Era,” Phi Delta Kappan 87, no. 3 (November 2005): 184–245.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adler, Mortimer J. The Paideia Proposal: An Educational Manifesto. New York: Macmillan, 1982. Apple, Michael W. “Social Crisis and Curriculum Accords.” Educational Theory 38, no. 2 (Spring 1988): 191–201. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. “Making Connections Through Global Education.” Curriculum Update (summer 1998): 8. Ayers, William. “Perestroika in Chicago’s Schools” Educational Leadership 48, no. 8 (May 1991): 69–71. Beauchamp, George A. Curriculum Theory, 4th ed. Itasca, Ill.: F. E. Peacock, 1981. Bloom, Benjamin S., ed. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. White Plains, N.Y.: Longman, 1956. ———, Hastings, J. Thomas, and Madaus, George F. Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. Boyer, Ernest L. High School: A Report on Secondary Education in America. New York: Harper & Row, 1983. Brown, B. Frank. The Nongraded High School. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1963. Bruner, Jerome S. The Process of Education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960. Carroll, Joseph M. “The Copernican Plan: Restructuring the American High School.” Phi Delta Kappan 71, no. 5 (January 1990): 358–365. Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education. Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education. Washington, D.C.: United States Office of Education, Bulletin no. 35, 1918. Conant, James B. The American High School Today. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959. David, Jane L. “Synthesis on Research on School-Based Management.” Educational Leadership 46, no. 8 (May 1989): 45–53. Doll, Ronald C. Curriculum Improvement: Decision Making and Process, 9th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1996. Educational Policies Commission. The Central Purpose of American Education. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1961. ———. Education for All American Youth. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1944. ———. The Purposes of Education in American Democracy. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1938. Eisner, Elliot W. Confronting Curriculum Reform. Boston: Little, Brown, 1971. ———. The Educational Imagination: On the Design and Evaluation of School Programs, 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan, 1985. Elmore, Richard F. and Fuhrman, Susan H., eds. The Governance of Curriculum, 1994 Yearbook. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1994. Firth, Gerald R. and Kimpston, Richard D. The Curricular Continuum in Perspective. Itasca, Ill.: F. E. Peacock, 1973. Frymier, Jack R. and Hawn, Horace C. Curriculum Improvement for Better Schools. Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones, 1970. Fuhrman, Susan H. “Legislation and Education Policy.” In Richard F. Elmore and Susan H. Fuhrman, eds., The Governance of Curriculum, 1994 Yearbook. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1994. Fullan, Michael G. “Coordinating Top-Down and Bottom- Up Strategies for Educational Reform.” In Richard F. Elmore and Susan H. Fuhrman, eds., The Governance of Curriculum, 1994 Yearbook. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1994. Gomez, Joseph J. “The Path to School-Based Management Isn’t Smooth, but We’re Scaling the Obstacles One by One.” American School Board Journal 176, no. 10 (October 1989): 20– 22. Goodlad, John I. A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984. Kelley, Earl C. Education for What Is Real. New York: Harper & Row, 1947. Kimbrough, Ralph B. and Nunnery, Michael Y. Educational Administration: An Introduction, 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan, 1988. McNeil, John D. Contemporary Curriculum in Thought and Action, 6th ed. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2006. Mendez, Roy. “The Curriculum Council: One Way to Develop the Instructional Leadership Role.” NASSP Bulletin 67, no. 464 (September 1983): 18–21. Miel, Alice. Changing the Curriculum: A Social Process. New York: D. Appleton Century, 1946. National Commission on Excellence in Education. A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983. National Education Association. Report of the Committee of Ten on Secondary School Studies. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1893. Oliva, Peter F. Developing the Curriculum, 5th ed. (New York: Longman, 2001), pp. 59–73. ———. The Secondary School Today, 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1972. Oliver, Albert I. Curriculum Improvement: A Guide to Problems, Principles, and Process, 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1977. Pinar, William F., Reynolds, William M., Slattery Patrick, and Taubman, Peter M. Understanding Curriculum: An Introduction to the Study of Historical and Contemporary Curriculum Discourses. New York: Peter Lang, 1996. Prasch, John. How to Organize for School-Based Management. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1990. “Restructuring Schools to Match a Changing Society.” Educational Leadership 45, no. 5 (February 1988): 3–79. “Restructuring Schools: What’s Really Happening.” Educational Leadership 48, no. 8 (May 1991): 3–76. Rothman, Robert. “Americans, Soviets Critique Texts,” Education Week 7, no. 12 (November 25, 1987): 5. Rubin, Louis, ed. Curriculum Handbook: The Disciplines, Current Movements, and Instructional Methodology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1977. Scully, Malcolm G. “Require Foreign-Language Studies, Presidential Panel Urges Colleges,” The Chronicle of Higher Education 19, no. 11 (November 13, 1979): 1ff. Shanker, Albert. “The End of the Traditional Model of Schooling—And a Proposal for Using Incentives to Restructure Our Public Schools.” Phi Delta Kappan 71, no. 5 (January 1990): 344–357. Silberman, Charles E. Crisis in the Classroom: The Remaking of American Education. New York: Random House, 1970. Sizer, Theodore F. Horace’s Compromise: The Dilemma of the American High School. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1984. Smith, B. Othanel, Stanley, William O., and Shores, Harlan J. Fundamentals of Curriculum Development. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1957. Sprague de Camp, Lyon. The Great Monkey Trial. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968. Tanner, Daniel and Tanner, Laurel. Curriculum Development: Theory into Practice, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill/Prentice Hall, 2007. Tye, Kenneth A., ed. Global Education from Thought to Action. 1991 Yearbook. Alexandria, Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1990. Tyler, Ralph W. Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949. Walker, Decker F. Fundamentals of Curriculum: Passion and Professionalism, 2nd ed., Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003. ——— and Soltis, Jonas F. Curriculum and Aims, 4th ed. New York: Teachers College Press, 2004. Wiles, Jon and Bondi, Joseph C. Curriculum Development: A Guide to Practice, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill/Prentice Hall, 2007. Wohlstetter, Priscilla. “Getting School-Based Management Right: What Works and What Doesn’t,” Phi Delta Kappan 77, no. 1 (September 1995): 22–26. “The World in the Classroom,” Educational Leadership 60, no. 2 (October 2002): 60–69. Zais, Robert S. Curriculum: Principles and Foundations. New York: Harper & Row, 1976.

Load more

  65

Copy Link